f13.net

Treyarch: It's all the hateful words used by fans that are destroying video game innovation. (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-01-treyarch-angry-gamers-stifle-creativity)

Bonus points because it is from Treyarch's community manager. In an interview about DLC to a franchise title.

 :facepalm:

Yep, it's not the POS game, it's those mean customers that just don't get it!

I don't think thats what he said.

He has some valid observations, if you don't focus on the title hes associated with. Gamers have become more cynical, and, you could make the best game ever, but some users would be condemning it, because this in a small part, has become the normal mode of conversation. IE: Big giant cynical contrary rants. I have even seen extremely long accusations and tirades as a way to ask questions. Or some of the most insulting, snide cometary and personal attacks as a the normal form of discussion, or info gathering. Its very odd, and its not just in games.

To ask a question or receive help with minor things (such as what button to press) has become an art form in tearing down the game, the people, and the other users in order to get an answer.

IE:

"I can't believe you made this boss so broken, its imposable to kill him, I bet your wife hates you in bed"

"Dude, just shoot him in the head"

"Fuck you apologist, thats to logical to be anything other than a bug and bad design! This game sucks"


I think this does impact choices developers make with changing the norm, if something is outside of a games expected manner, it can ignite even more bad press on top of this new trend of "normal" discussion. We all know it does not matter if something is true, it just maters if its said.


/flame suit

His observations are not vaild. He's just complaining about the internet being more popular and offering anonymity to a younger audience without the ability to express themselves in a coherent manner. It has nothing to do with games. Media's growing and people complain, so that stunts creative growth? No. What stunts growth is the inability manufacture a product that will sell and get financial backing for it without blowing it in an orgy of stupidity. You know what really stunts creative growth in games?

1 - Financial backers not willing to take chances on something that isn't a proven formula
2 - Developers being so shitty with overhead expenses that investors lose confidence
3 - Derivative shit that's broken at release, driving down sales
4 - The expectations gap between investors, publishers, developers, and customers
5 - Projects that fall into problems because of an unreasonable time table.

None of that has to do with kids getting angry on the internet. It's a convenient scapegoat for the fact that most "creative" minds have absolutely no idea how to run a business.

Word of mouth on the internet is powerful. In fact I believe there are some very popular sites dedicated to this very notion positive and negitive.   :oh_i_see:

No one is saying its the only reason.

Fine, give me some examples of a game that was killed by word of mouth and not by financial ineptitude or technical failings. In other words, tell me how the negative populace killed a game that had the tools for success?

Who was talking about killing games? I believe the topic was stifling creativity and going outside the box in design and mechanics, and the reactions resulting.

Responding as "Hes blaming the customer" is missing the point entirely, and funny enough, sort of proves his point.

Putting this here to be referenced:


Bolding mine.

You'll have to give some examples then.

Its rather safe to say that many up and coming MMOs (Something I pay more attention to then other genres), that were technically sound, but had unique things to them likely suffered a great deal of loss in interest or potential sales due to the "Pundits" he speaks of slathering all over the web. Some, simply in defense of the game they are currently playing.

Have a trillion examples: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm

I think this site should know full well how easy it is for one small misconception to snowball into some "Fact" thats tossed around to death like wildfire. Many users don't care to do the legwork to find out if its true or not. Its irrelevant at that point.

I took it as being the difference between "I didn't like the game, but I appreciate what it tried to do" and "I didn't like the game because it's a piece of shit." Except the latter is filled with nitpicking of features that aren't broken/bad, but the implication is made. In the end painting the game in the light of being poorly made.

Can't think of an example because I tend to skip over that stuff and you probably won't notice it if you don't surf sites like NeoGAF.

It's not the only reason, but it is part of the reason why investors have no confidence in unproven formulas.

Nix said what I was attempting to say a bit better. But I think its ingrained more than that, like I said, its as if its become the normal mode of discussion of a game, simply being disrespectful, disagreeable and sensationalist.

Hes not the first CM/DEV to say this stuff, and won't be the last. I bet many more would love to say it, but you see how its taken, look at the responses.



I wish I could track how many people would simply ignore the game in question, because I put the title "This game is the apex of hand holding" in a thread on popular media sites. The implication of that title alone will trigger some sort of hardcore "I'm to awesome for this kids game" response. Completely overshadowing all the work, polish, or uniqueness and good parts of a title in one line. Would be an awesome thing to know.

Its been dismissed to a good chunk of users. How much did that title dismiss, was it even true, does it matter?

It doesn't exactly help when what they're increasingly doing is putting more and more manpower into games which give the gamers less and less in return, and demanding more and more money for it (60 euro for black ops?). This means that they HAVE to sell like hotcakes, or "the market doesn't want the game". I'd be inclined to put that down as more of a cause for stifling innovation than "oh god they're saying mean things about my game on the intarweb".

Also, if he thinks that complaining about mean words on the internet is really going to help, then he's being optimistic at best. Counterpoint:
(http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/shitcock.jpg)

Yes, but his job is to manage expectations, set the tone of discourse, and riffle through the bile to find the relevant feedback.

I don't wish that hell on anyone thees days. 98% of its is trash and bile. That ALONE has a huge impact in expanding creativity and quality. As he said, something that seems unintentional on the part of gamers, but non-the-less is the norm.

The only way to "fix that" is by making it so people can't be anonymous, or there will be more and more of this, because the kids today aren't exactly born with what I would call an overly active "maybe I shouldn't post that" feature.

Quick edit: Hell, I keep seeing the exact same thing on every god damned spot on the internet where people can post anonymously (and even when a full name is required). I can only hope for his sake that the posting he's wading through isn't as bad as what happens when you start people off on religious matters or abortion or other such fun topics.

Anonymity isn't the issue. Even on Facebook, with their names front and center, my younger brother and his friends post the dumbest and most thoughtless shit.

But that's a discussion best left for another thread.

He's pretty clueless if he thinks that internet haters have a credible impact on game development decisions at that sort of level. If I had to make an ordered list of all the stuff that actually does 'stunt creativity and innovation' then 'mean things being said on the internet' would be a long way down. Like, not even on the first few pages.

If he means that 'sometime features that our design team thought would be awesome aren't properly appreciated for the pure nuggets of genius that they are' then he might have a point but he seems to be aiming higher than that. He spends his working day immersed in player feedback and commentary on the game he works for, he just hasn't yet learnt to filter that for perspective.

I agree, and that was my point as well. I don't disagree that mean people stunt creativity. I just think buggy shit and bad sales due to poor development stunt it a hell of a lot more.

What does that have to do with creativity?

Take your shot.  Failure or success. 

If a critic or pundit played a game and found it to be the 'apex of handholding', then that's their opinion.  That's the whole point.  Consumers have a bond with critics, pundits, and reviewers forged over time.  There are certain reviewers I outright ignore because their past reviews have told me that we just simply don't agree.

Just because you had an original idea doesn't mean I need to enjoy your game.  We have an entire section on what it boils down to.  'But Is It Fun?'  We had a thread about how much gaming time some of us have.  Games aren't cheap, time is limited, so you better bring your A game.  We don't all have disposable income to bust out on 'it had a good idea' if that idea and the surrounding game don't resonate with us.

I just don't see how you can say fans or reviewers are destroying creativity, when fans line up in front of games like Minecraft and Magicka. 

No, Bloodworth, he's making an asinine point because he's stuck dealing with crazy, angry PS3 players for the time being.

I'm not talking about critics at review sites, I'm also not talking about evaluations based on any kind of fact, or even playing of the game.  Most reviews will say they don't like X because of XYZ, this is a far cry from those thoughts on social media sites or other gaming sites.

I disagree that such responses do not have impact on future game planning or decisions to try something not formulated. Especially in the age of viral spread of info. Not in the big budget game, the indi game is a much different animal, they are typically made by those beholden to no one (Minecraft/Mojang and Magicka/Paradox interactive).

Also, customers getting angry and voting with their wallets isn't a bad thing. There are plenty of top-selling games that were creative and technically polished. They did well because of it. Are we beholden to generations of similar games because they set the stage to succeed? Of course, but that doesn't mean that innovation is frowned up due to negative press. When customers get tired of those derviatives, they stop paying for them and developers will explore other options to grab the market. It's not diminishing. If anything the market for users of video games is expanding with more disposable income than even, and they are more discerning and less likely to put up with the previous bullshit in past games.

Top Sellers that were creative:
The Sims
Guild Wars
Myst
Populous
Anno
Baldur's Gate
7th Guest
Tropico
SimCity
Civilization

So, you're talking the random herpderp of the internet?

Yeah, in full agreement with Paelos.  Your game will tank because its shitty before it will tank because the internet hates it.  Half the time, what the herpderp internet says is the exact opposite of what reality brings.  See the Wii and Kinect, that sell despite utter internet hate.  I've seen many a game rise on viral internet love.  I've yet to see viral hate kill one.

That your shareholders or executives think internet herpderp matters is a larger problem.  

Again, not talking about "killing a game".  Also, Paelos, most of those games, are before the age we now live in.

It's telling that most of the games on that list have been through multiple iterations of sequels. 

Shareholders and execs are guys with money and guys in suits, normally age 45 and up.  If they go looking for anything all they're going to see is random herpderp and have better things to do than engross themselves in internet culture to know what is and is not herpderp.  So yeah, it matters.

Yep, and they've been repeated again and again because they were good and, here's the key, they keep selling. What stifles creativity? The fact that the audience favors something else to the tune of millions of copies sold.

If you're not talking about "killing a game" what are you talking about? Stifling the creative exchange of ideas? Preventing thinking outside the box? In every case, I'll point to money as the primary cause. That money is being provided by consumers who like what they like, even if you don't like the fact that they like it.

I apologize for the hyperbole.  

What examples can you put forth that internet outcry has resulted in a game being less creative than its original intent?   I can understand implementation issues.  Lack of budget.  Intent outstripping reality.  But I've yet to hear of 'the internet thought this creative idea was horrible.  Scrap that system completely.'  Generally, it goes the opposite way.  For instance, Splinter Cell Conviction started back in the day with some systems that fans were somewhat intrigued about, like hiding in plain sight, but it retained a firm emphasis on stealth.

http://www.vg247.com/2010/04/16/interview-splinter-cell-convictions-maxime-beland/

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/09/interview-alexandre-parizeau-talks-splinter-cell-conviction-e/

In the end, they went with the final product, which put off a number of Splinter Cell fans on the internet.  But it still worked decently for them.

I never said it was not.  Its very hard to discuss things if the only things allowed are extremes.

As to examples, its potentially easier to point to game designs that are direct responses to "herpderp" than it is to track or display the impact that the "herpderp" has on decision points during design. Typically the only ones that get noticed though, are extreme examples done by houses unknown (Darkfall, Mortial online, many other uber niche games based on some sort of ideological badge of honor that usealy has zero to do with good design or fun, and more to do with appeasing "herpderp" as you call it)

A good chunk though of what I was talking about I already explained, tone in discussions has changed at the same time it became more assessable to more people.


I truly don't know how else to explain it.

I do. Anything positive is automatically labeled fanboi-ism and immediately discarded.  Cynical, jaded and possibly hateful tones give you 'cred' and are held up as being the zenith of objective discourse.

Even this forum falls into it on a routine basis.

Anyone else find it "funny" this topic is being discussed on THESE boards?  :grin:

I did, every time I typed cynical.

Am I the only one who noticed this gem in the original article:
Which is all well and good, except First Strike is only out on Xbox for the moment, with a PS3/PC release to follow.  :uhrr:

BW, all your comments are sane and reasonable...assuming you don't know what a complete and utter clusterfuck Black Ops for the PC was for the first 3 weeks of launch. It was so bad that many people just gave up on it. Subsequent patches have made it 'ok' to play on a PC, but its still woefully cludgy for a AAA title.

If Treyarch is getting aggro, good. They deserve every iota of nerd rage coming their way. There was simply no excuse for the level of horrible they put out.

I cannot comment on Xbox or PS3 platforms.

I don't believe his comments were in response to "What have you done to fix the PC version". Otherwise I would agree thats its relevant.

Full QnA


Amazingly, the question was omitted from the euro gamer interjection piece. Part of the problem, is also the out of context but i'm going to comment anyway "Games journalism". Its been taken as a response to the very valid criticism and anger from users.

And thats just false.

I guess I don't get your point, then. That people are more cynical on the internet? Sure, they are. That it has some effect on the gaming industry? I would have to be completely foolish to say it doesn't.

I guess I don't see the purpose of writing about it or putting it out there as an idea if you don't believe it plays a large part in gaming development. We don't have to talk about extremes for a point to have a relevent effect, but we also shouldn't be listening to a dude who released a shitty game bitch about the community when it has only a marginal effect on the outcome.

As he's saying in that article, to him it's the BIGGEST problem. I think he's got his head up his ass.

EDIT: Which you seem to agree with seeing your recent post.

Wow, some of you did not read the full original article did you?

The euro gamer article has been presented as if this was the response to the issues you cite. THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

Eurogamer title: "Treyarch: angry gamers stifle creativity" And it only contains that quite to the last question posed to a CM about HIS FIELD IN DEVELOPMENT that he would change.

Not only is the title false, hes not speaking for an entire company, he speaking from his position and his opinion, within his field. But that does not make a good story.


Do you see how Eurogamer is part of the problem he was speaking about? Look at the response it garnered:


Nothing in that quote was about those issues, not one, those issues he addressed earlier in the interview directly. Sure, its PR speak, but it was addressed and did not have anything to do with the issue we are currently debating. It certainly did not "Blame the customers".

BW, we go through this with every title out there you champion for a cause. As a general attitude, I applaud you for your resilient optimism and desire to keep things reasonable.

But again, the very passage you quote has a community manager for a AAA title complaining about 'negative social media' about a game that was not adequately tested.

I'm sorry for him, as I am for any gaming community manager, since he has to face the wrath of customers purchasing a $60.00 game that works like complete ass out of the box, but he, as a representative of the company that just put out a best selling turd of a title, doesn't get to suffer the ennui of being misunderstood by the horde of unwashed raging gamers.

I can guarantee you that the community manager of a game that works would not be talking about his creativity being stifled by 'negative fans'. The positive feedback would be apparent, and the negative nancies would be seen as either trolls or just malcontents and, far more importantly, wouldn't be accused of being 'the biggest problem facing the games industry today'.

It smacks immensely of blaming the victim, rather than the real hurdles to gaming creativity, namely budgetary constraints, unreasonable launch dates set by marketing folks, heavy handed publishers, etc.

I don't even own this game. You did not read the article, or the context the quote came from you have knee jerk reacted. Eurogamer has done you a disservice.

Irony is deep.

Bloodworth, I think you're looking at this article for some meaningful commentary when the entire thing should just be dismissed as ridiculous.

Here's an anology. Don't tell people the biggest problem in marriage today is unrealistic expectations and negativity when you got caught fucking your secretary.

Counterpoint: what has AAA games really brought to the table the past 5 years that have been truly innovative?

Beyond DRM and a slight tweak of graphics, of course.

Bloody fucking brililiant.

No, I just don't really see the comment about stifling creativity as a response to "your game is buggy". There is not logical connection. Top it all off with a helping of euro-gamer presenting it as one, and someone once again saying im just a fanboi when I support the comment, as its something I also agree with and have for a long time, and dont even own the title.

Even taking away the context of BlackOps and pretending for a moment that he's a CM for a random studio that hasn't just released a shitty game that got panned by the paying public, he's still dead wrong. People saying bad things about your product on message-boards have zero impact on the game while it is in any kind of development state. It might potentially impact sales after release but by that point practically all of the 'innovation and creativity' has happened already.

He's talking up the influence of community because that's his field and he hasn't yet learnt any perspective. Senior producers give no fucks when you cut and paste a screed from xXxS8NxXx about how your game totally sucks and they'll torrent it instead of buying it into a feedback email.

We know the question had nothing to with the game.  We're saying its nowhere near the biggest problem facing the gaming industry today, and the only reason he's probably even saying that is because his studio is currently under fire for a situation related to a title they just released.  We're saying that damned creative titles get made all the time in this culture he feels is worse.

Gamers reward creativity implemented well.  They mercilessly crush that which is implemented poorly.


Thank you.

1 - He's a terrible mouthpiece to make that point.
2 - I don't agree with your view on the point even if he wasn't a terrible mouthpiece to support it.
3 - Haters gonna hate, bro.

I would not have made the claim its the biggest issue ether. But I do agree its an issue.

Look how it was twisted already, how long did it take to be turned the title of this thread, how many times over has that happened with just this one quote?

...that came out in the previous decade? And even those (besides GW, I guess) were real early in the aughts. And BG has been hammered into a somewhat lukewarm DA series; Civ V has all but ended the franchise.

I don't think you can point at one thing, the cause and effect is far too complex. As I just read in Reaper's Gale: a cliff breaks free and kills a village. However, the cliff was made unstable by the villagers themselves when they over-forested the upper part. Are gamers to blame for getting what they ask for? The villagers over-forested due to demand for lumber in a distant port city, is the port city to blame? Are developers trying to appeal to a perceived audience? The port city needed the lumber to build the fleet that fills the demand of the local ruler, is the ruler to blame? Do you blame publisher pressure? The ruler is merely reacting to tensions created by overpopulation, like the town under the cliff. Is the market shooting too high, the double-edged sword of either putting too large a budget on a niche title or watering down a niche to try and appeal to some nebulous mainstream audience?

It's funny how some of the best games ever made were made before official forums existed. And to see what utter cesspools official forums are. One look at the Rift forum, even the beta forum, and one has to consider why one would even consider playing a multiplayer game with these utter degenerates. I'd even advance it a bit further to include the rabid inclusion of multiplayer just to tick a feature list point; or the vapid media that tsks any time a game is released without multiplayer, as if that's somehow a bad thing.

Also, look at the SWTOR thread  :why_so_serious:

I wouldn't say this is the biggest issue that affects game development but I think it is highly realistic to say that it stifles creativity. I can just imagine the following conversation:

Dev: We want to do an MMO that is skill based. As you use your skills they increase and...
Suit: Yes, but games that aren't like WOW get trashed on the internet. *holds up a pile of papers with "market analysis" on them*
Dev: Uhhh...those are just internet people whining....loud minority and...
Suit: Make it like WOW.
Dev: *sighs*

While this example is extremely simplified I think something like it probably happens alot.

It happens between developers too. Main thing I keep going back to in my head is F2P implementations as a modern example. Most player concerns are completely irrational, but you can not ignore them.  Just a wiff of XXXX concern being used will instantly cause a whiplash through the net about your title (That is, if any one gave a frack in the first place).

Go grab the best selling games from the past 3 years.

Yeah I'm sure that The black-ops guys are hurting over this merciless cursing they are receiving.

So why make the point at all?  If they don't care, then they'll do what they want regardless.  If they do care, then this is a worthless statement.


That's like saying any MMO that doesn't sell WoW numbers is a failure.  Come on now.  

Scribblenauts, Love, Minecraft, Recettear, Assassin's Creed, LKimbo, Castlevania Harmony of Despair, Cave Story, Scott Pilgrim, Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, Amnesia, etc.  These developers were rewarded for giving gamers something even slightly different.

It's how you end up with shit like this:

http://www.carpefulgur.com/

It's a parade of sequel crap to be sure. However, there are spots of innovation even in the Darkness.

Wii Fit, Spore, Sins of a Solar Empire, Crysis, and Left 4 Dead.

TBH I tapped out this conversation about two posts ago.

Fair enough, good sir.

This is what I asked him at the very first instance, only to be met with a link to a forum and two pages of "you don't understand what it's like!!11!".

Not what happened.

While we're complaining about gamers' opinions I'd like to register one about using 'sequel' as a pejorative. My 5 favorite games released in 2010 were all sequels. Sequels don't have to mean EA Sports yearly shovelware type stuff. They're not inherently bad or good.

Many times the second perfects the series the way the devs wish they could've made it with more funding. Then the third craps it up with fan feedback and money grabbery  :why_so_serious:

I'm serious, btw. Most AAA games these days are 3-5 years in the making, with 150+ people working on it, and a budget of $100m+ (ok, I might be overexaggerating the numbers a bit). How many of those games are even remotely close to being innovative in any way, shape or form? Most of what I see seems to be short SP with a bland MP and (in the case of funny games such as Black Ops) a $60 pricetag with maybe 1 or 2 new features or .

Games that actually seem to be innovative (or at the very least provide solid releases with good content) seem to either be from small groups (1-10 guys), rockstar or valve (who probably aren't getting their main revenue from making games anymore, so they can actually afford to play around).

Bitching seems to me to be the least of their problems, budget bloat to the point where they have to sell 1m units or more to even break even strikes me as much more of a problem.

Innovation isn't the only thing that determines a game's quality. It isn't even necessarily important at all.

See: Assassin's Creed 2

On sequels in general, sometimes I do want more of the same with slight improvement, thank you very much.

You're a game developer man.  You're supposed to show me the future.  I'm supposed to reward you when you succeed.  A publisher shuts you down when you fail, sadly.

I agree with this.

Does Portal count as a AAA title?

Portal 2?  Yes.  The original?  Valve just sort of threw it out there, not expecting it to blow up like it did.

The biggest innovation we've seen recently is Minecraft. I fully expect that to be ripped off by a AAA studio within 3 years.

Phew, so it's not just me!

I'm pleased Recettear has done so well. I really like that game.  :heart: It could use an expansion or something though, I desire MORE objects to charge way too much for!

Mass Effect 2
Rome: Total War, Medieval: Total War
C&C Red Alert
Age of Empires II
Dark Forces II
GTA (insert number here)
Final Fantasy (insert number here)
Fallout 2 & 3

Ya, them sequels just suck.

Hell Warcraft II.

Disgaea 2
Shadow Hearts: Covenant
MGS IV
Team Fortress 2
Saints Row 2
Just Cause 2
Baldur's Gate 2
System Shock 2
Dead Rising 2
Persona 3/4

Etc etc etc.  Point's been made, I suppose.   :grin:

Nothing wrong with incremental game play advancements.  Sometimes I takes something that was flawed by fun and removes a lot of the "flawed" or applies the same formula to a greater understanding of the craft.  Rockstar's been living off that for over 10 years now.   

If you want to read the full interview, it's mostly a fluff piece. (http://www.nowgamer.com/features/1185/black-ops-first-strike-dlc-treyarch-interview?o=2#listing)

Does gamer culture have some toxic elements? Absolutely. But that isn't all it is. Devs seem quite happy to ignore players most of the time (and rightly for the most part) so I find it funny to think our usefully cynical take on MMOs has somehow reduced the scope of the industry according to Olin.

My chief bit of amusement was seeing a community manager blame the players, which is pretty much the end of the line for a community manager. That he blamed them in an interview where he talked about releasing DLC for a franchise FPS that sold well despite not bringing much new to the table was the icing on the cake.

I'd have to argue with "unique" and "technically sound".  There may be a few that offer one or the other, but both combined with an added "fun" I'm going to call you on.

Please name one that meets these criteria and got panned.

I'm guessing he may say APB.

I suppose I could, but I have avoided citing examples, as it somewhat misses the point when we will inevitably get in to the resulting views on what constitutes "unique" and "technically sound". Then it becomes a bash the game, bash the poster game that I don't want to get into again with this community.

Many things are lost, such as the point of the conversation, when you start the "one up" game here.

Bottom line though (IMO), Irrational banter on various sites, logical, or truthful or not, directly impact how something is received. True quality is irrelevant. The fire that burns brightest is the one that gets repeated. Entire games can be written off, regardless of execution, for some potential users. Many times, for things that are non-issues or simply community created myths, or even rival community created. The current method of discussion I mentioned simply compounds the issue, and make it all the more violent in its effects. Some "edgy" article can indeed sway people to never even do the own research into a title. It can also very much overshadow true innovation or uniqueness, to the point that affects development, more so in sequels or multi-title franchises.  

But I believe I am just repeating myself at this point.

I remember when the gaming press jumped all over Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress, demanding they conform. It was a bloodbath.

I don't really count such titles in this, as those are not AAA titles. They are more driven by nostalgia and catering to a niche.  To be fair, Minecraft IS a sequel that was tempered by feedback from its previous incarnation.

The only thing the internet has done to discourse is given everyone perfect record keeping.


People have always been this cynical and stupid, the internet didn't start that or blow it up. It did make sure you always REMEMBER that they are though.



Everyone has had that retarded conversation at a family dinner, about taxes or politics or how my sports team is superior to yours. Well guess what, you've just had a "flame war", it's just everyone forgets about it after it's done. If you actually typed out the entire conversation, you would do the YouTube comment people proud.

There's also always been those folk, that just hate anything popular. Always that kid that insisted his Turbografx 16 was the best thing ever while everyone else went back to playing their Nintendos. Someone always hates the bands you like and etc.



It's just all permanent now, so you can always confirm what you sorta half remember what someone said.

Yes, you have good points. Does not change the outcome IMO. I think its does stem from social changes, but the rant as a form of question things does not simply happen in games, this is very true.

I think the social issues are the same. Like people are saying, the forum for voicing displeasure reaches wider audiences. Our awareness has changed, not the inputs.

Everyone thinks the next generation is getting worse while looking at the past for a more orderly society.

That's not reality.

No, its rather clear to me that tone and methods have changed. YMMV.

Bingo. And now you know what's really stifling innovation, even saying so yourself. It's not because xXVampsterBaterXx fancies himself the H.L. Mencken of messageboards. Also, just because I mentioned him, go look up when H.L. Mencken lived. It wasn't in 2007.

I do not believe that I have in this discussion said that it was the only or major reason. What is REALLY slowing innovation is a large list of things, but we were not talking about all the items in that list.

And I'm saying that the reactions of mean internet people is so far down the list of those reasons that it's barely worth mentioning, especially when the initial discussion starter is blatant corporate ass-covering.

Oh, I agree he should not have even brought it up, even if he felt that way. There was only one way people were going to take it, as has been clearly shown.

See, that puts the onus on us for not seeing it his/your way. That's a little passive aggressive. It might just be that he's wrong.

Suits and big business pressures create Civ IV.

Creativity and freedom create FFH2.

Anyway, about player feedback. There's a definite quality gradation, I'm not sure exactly where the demarcations are, but I'd imagine big budget/high hype games attract the worst of it, especially mmo where you've got a ton of social maladroits ironically being the loudest voices. I enter Haemmy staeb mode when I read stuff like "My whole guild is going to move to (unreleased hypebot)" or "(Unreleased hypebot) will be the game I've been looking for to play the next five years!" The sheer combination of building community artificially, stifled creativity, and insanity of the concept of people playing a game for years on end leads to ze epic lulz deluxe.

But on the other end of the spectrum, when you've got a quirky little mod community like FFH had, where there's a level of intelligence and competence amongst the participants, you almost regain faith in humanity.

And while you may love FFH2, Sky, a lot of players didn't.

 :popcorn:

I'm still wondering who these "pundits" are, who hold such sway over both the industry and consumers? Not reviews or reviewers, but their immense power stems from social media sites? Which sites? Facebook? Who on FB is so influential to developers and (hundreds of?) thousands of consumers?

Guys, that's basically sales 101. On average a discontented customer tells 6 to 12 other people about his negaive experiences with a product. That was before the internet. Unhappy customers are 'better' multipliers than happy ones and how to deal with them is basic sales and management training.

Yeah, pissed people tend to tell others to not buy your products. And this probably happens since the invention of speech. That's why community management is such an important piece in your marketing efforts. Ideally you only ship products that aren't crap. Since Treyarch have a history of not doing that, they at least need strong CM to offset the complaints, happy people don't spam your forums with 'everything is fine, great game'.

How complaining about crappy games stifles creativity however is the secret of that CM. Usually appealing to the lowest common denominator and lack of funding of creative projects does that.

If I were snarky I'd say that there is nothing particularly creative in making the umpteenth sequel to a franchise that was invented by another studio. Teyarch usually finds creative ways to fuck with the formula or make your experience miserable though. Seems like they get a lot of credit for their kind of creativity on their forums  :why_so_serious:

The comments to me look more like a burned out CM than legitimate criticism.

 :Love_Letters:

Again though, those criticisms happen after the game has been designed and gone gold. Internet criticsim of a released product doesn't make the developer pull all copies of a game so that they can remove the innovation from it.

In general, it also seems that players will support a theoretical enhancement to a game when described by a dev (e.g. public quests) because it sounds good, but can dislike the actual execution. Very few players ask for less new features, but they will complain about things that are added but don't really contribute to the game or change the gameplay.

I just stumbled onto this article (link's in the quote):


I feel that this quote (found on page 2) underlines a major problem I have with an increasing part of games being released the last 5+ years, initially (around deus ex: invisible war, i.e. sometime in 2003) with regards to in-game complexity and controller-wise. The very best example I can think of is to compare ArmA2 and OpFlash2. Both were "sequels" of the same original game, OpFlash, yet basically the only thing that's been improved was the graphics, every other part of the experience were either removed (freelook, lean) or new features such as respawning your squadmates at 4-5 predetermined points in the mission, and it made me quit and erase the game in disgust after less than an hour.

Personally I feel that PC gaming is also being stifled by the proliferation of online activations etc. I know the last part isn't going to be shared by a vast majority of people, so I'm not going to make a huge point of it, but it is having an impact (however small).

 :drill: :oh_i_see:

I am (probably obviously) on board with the thrust of that article. A couple things, though.

While the author refers to the (again, obvious) fact that consoles are hitting a wider audience, I'd be interested to know the total amount of PC gamers now compared to halycon 1999. Given the impact of things like 800# gorillas (wow) and cheap computers (intel gpus notwithstanding), I'd imagine the PC gamer playerbase is also far larger than it was 12 years ago. And moving into pure assumptionland, that the core pc gamer audience (us) is also larger as a whole. Thus, since most devs got their feet wet in pc gaming, and many of the companies now moving to consoleland also made their names in pc gaming, they could still turn a healthy profit just marketing to the pc market.

Mass Effect 2 is a game the author mentioned with consolitis. I have to say, the sequel plays much better than the first and I'd probably leave it off the list since I think the overall play experience was improved so much (it's almost painful to go back to ME1).

Pic fail for the artist forgetting to extend Bobby's pinkie finger.

Problem is, despite the proliferation of PCs out there, folks aren't updating them.  If you design a PC game and want to pick-up the largest portion of those cheap computers, they'd better be running nothing much more taxing than WoW in the first place. That just pisses off the guys with the ultra-sleek $3k PCs because.. I don't know, I guess they realize it was a bad investment.

Only geeks keep their machines up to date (and even we are falling behind on that if this board is a good sample.)  Lord knows the family that bought the Best Buy special at X-mas 4 years ago isn't planning on replacing it until it burns out.

You don't have that problem with Consoles.  Folks upgrade them because they're only an appliance and there's clear delineation in regards to upgrades and new versions. 

The piece of this that has some validity is that gaming as a subculture has nurtured a sensibility with a big space carved out for various kinds of advanced assholery combined with serious entitlement issues. At the same time developers have no one but themselves to blame because they largely create games for that subculture and that subculture is where most developers come from. If the whole thing feels like a small nursery room full of babies with crap in their diapers, then the answer is to leave the room, not to complain that the babies still doing stinkies or to try to hire some community managers who will occasionally sprinkle talcum powder around the room.

All other mass media have fandoms or devoted audiences who are demanding, but that's often a goad to excellence. More importantly, most other mass media or art forms are diverse enough creative spaces that they sustain multiple communities and audiences, some of whom are less suffocating in their devotion. Games have had moments where they teeter on that kind of broadening and deepening, but for the moment the pull of the same intense, deeply experienced, aesthetically narrow audience who buy a lot of games dominates over a wider audience that might buy fewer games but sustain a bigger possibility space around gaming as a whole.

I'm not quite sure how representative this'll be when it comes to the wider audience, but:

http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/gallery_files/site/270/1042/2387.pdf

Search for "breakdown of sales by platform", and note how large the PC sales apparently seems to be.

What happened to the ammo? Why do I have to duck infront of a crate before I can jump up on top of it?

As to merusk's post, one of the reasons we don't upgrade our PCs "as much" is probably more the fact that there's no point. After I got this 285 and win7, I've been able to easily play 2-3 eve and 1 wurm at the same time. We've basically hit the point where we're looking at diminishing returns, unless you're looking at games like crysis 2 perhaps.

I still have a less than 3 year old PC, whereas the 360 I have is from either 2005 or 2006, I don't know. I got it as a bonus for doing something at work, and I've bought ... 5? 10? games tops. It's still not dead, so there's no point in upgrading it yet, and last I checked, MS was saying that the 360 should last 8, maybe 10 years before they release an update, to milk the hardware investment as much as possible, and I think sony is saying the same thing.

Scaling! Scaling is also a hardware seller, since people see they can play the game perfectly well with good graphics...but there is still another 33% or whatever shiny left in those sliders. Rather than take the course of action of just removing the 33% overhead (because of hardware QQ), tell people to buy better hardware, since the game runs at 'console' level graphics at the 33% mark, thus giving them better graphics with a mediocre pc than they'd get with a console (twice as good). Using GTA4 as a reference (because I looked up the settings to emulate the 360 graphics and tweaked up from there).

Tgr; missing my point entirely. Yes, consoles are huge. My point was that the pc gaming market is also bigger than it was in 1999. Just because the console market got ridiculously huge doesn't mean that the pc market is an afterthough. It's larger and more accessible than it ever was, we should be in the middle of an amazing pc renaissance, rather than in the midst of an era of cast-off ports you hope the third-party ported decently (Saint's Row 2, I'm looking at you), or console 'exclusives' you hope make it to the pc despites claims from the devs (RDR).

I get it's a business, make your Black Ops and your console bajillions. But fund a solid pc development sector focusing on pc-only titles (that aren't mmo). Thank god for the eurorpg.

Design choices you don't like are not the same thing as "consolitis".

There's no way in hell I'm going to ever concede ducking in front of a crate before I can jump because they've decided to map that to the same button, as "design choices". That's consolitis.

Ammo I can to a point live with (it didn't annoy me, but it did annoy a cousin of mine vOv), but it's still a simplification which I'm going to attribute to consoles.

The decision could easily be down to animation budget rather than button mapping, though.

That sounds like a monumental stretch to me. If it had been a small-time gig then I wouldn't be so surprised if they didn't add high-detailed animations for jumping, but I would still assume they'd let me jump. ME2, however, has so much animation literally everywhere else that them not adding a jumping animation due to an animation budget sounds unlikely. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'd be very surprised if it was actually the case.

Basically, the writer of that article is a fucking idiot with a rather romanticised view of the games industry and the way that it works, and apparently a bit of an entitlement whore attitude. While I do think it's great that indie games have been revived with platforms like Steam and XBLA, I don't see anything wrong with people wanting to make money from their work. He seems to have that "you need to starve for your art" attitude as a subtext, or if not that extreme, that it's still a good and acceptable thing to starve for your art.

also...

Does he give examples? Of course the word "can" is always an out. I know Braid did well, as have Torchlight and Monday Night Combat (are those indy games, though? They certainly had publicity..) And APB was a AA title that crashed and burned... the latest GH games have fizzled... so I guess if you take both extremes, he might be right. But I can't see a quiet no publicity indy game doing Black Ops numbers, which is what the insinuation is there.

edit - spelling

If game developers were as a whole catering to what people liked, there wouldn't be such a massive library of shitty games and monumental fuckups too broken to be graced with the label game out there made by people considered to be goddamn oracles of game design a mere decade ago.  More often than not developers show they lack even a basic understanding of what fun means.

I'd often wondered what developers could do with unlimited funds and time, but they didn't have the knowledge that there were unlimited funds and time.

The problem there is that they're making things that they think will be fun. Another problem is that the industry is immature and incestuous, as you suggest. Also, that Bill Roper/Hellgate thread.

The correct answer was Minecraft.

Psychochild has detailed a few titles that preceded Minecraft that sank without trace (Infiniminer iirc), which is the fate of most indie titles. Picking the outlier of success like that is like looking at WoW as the aim for a MMO developer: there is a slim chance you'll get to that level, but don't bet on it.

One problem I have with the idea that indie titles as some sort of innovation-driving sub-industry is that I tend to see indies going back to simpler game styles (e.g. the platformer) were one small twist makes them stand out. Limbo was great at evoking mood, but it has straight roots back to Pitfall mechanics-wise. There's some new ideas coming through, but a hell of a lot of repackaged nostalgia as well. Braid was practically drowning in it despite all the artwank.

Plus indies are cheap / free. We expect less from them as a result. Cost $5 and lasted 1 hour? That can be good enough. A AAA-title that costs $50 that lasted 10 hours? Rip-off!

To me, the whole, "the video games industry if full of crap titles now, not like in the good old days!" is myopic whining of the nth order. There are more games available than ever before. The 'golden age of gaming' (pick your own era / genre) was also full of awful games, but fewer of them and they've been forgotten. Yeah, increasing game budgets have made some developers more cautious, but some still push out and try something a bit different. It's also hard to take gamers on the whole seriously when they simultaneously claim to want new, innovative titles, yet clamour for the release of Duke Nukem Forever and hoist the COD franchise to the top of the charts.

Jesus I'm such a wall of texter. :ye_gods:
While "should be a side effect of game development" might be a bit strongly worded, I agree with the sentiment. If you go into game development because you absolutely love it, chances are (at least in my mind) that the end result will be higher quality than if you just go into game development because "hey moneyhats".

I have no problems (and I would hope the article writer would agree, but he might just be richard stallman-level crazy vOv) with f.ex infinity ward or activision making moneyhats off of the call of duty series, as long as they treat the gamers with respect. I'm going to go so far as to say that they were still treating PC gamers with respect with MW1 (even if its SP part was getting a bit short), but MW2 being released without console, lean and dedicated server support "because it's not balanced for lean/we're making the online experience better" is a major step backwards from its predecessor and it felt like a slap in the face for me as a PC gamer. The fact that I felt the SP was almost criminally short and disjointed didn't help.

I also doubt you'll see indie games doing as well as black ops, but I think you're focusing a bit much on its stellar sales figure. The good thing about indie devs is that they're usually so small that they don't really HAVE to sell 5 million units on the first day to regard the game as a success.

I'll just point you to http://greyaliengames.com/blog/some-fantastic-indie-sales-stats/ and cliffski's sales figures. I first heard of him 2 years ago I think, because he went out publically against pirates (I believe it was right as the whole DRM debate began heating up). As a company of 150 people, his sales figures look abysmal, but when you look at it as an essentially 1-man band (I believe he outsources some graphics and sound creation), then he's at least not exactly starving. The others on that link aren't as successful, but I haven't heard of any of them, some because they haven't advertised and some definitely because I give no fucks about their type of game (...soccer?).

This brings me onto a different aspect, advertising. It's probably the major stumbling block for most indie games developers, as they're likely to be unable to spend much on advertising, which means they're relying on word-of-mouth to actually sell their games. Cliffski did something right in going out against the pirates, as it got him lots of press, and I bought a few of his games because I actually saw what he had to offer. Steam is going to be a godsend for advertising such games, I've purchased tons of indie games off of steam because 1) I think "hey, that looks cool", 2) I know it'll go towards ONE guy (or a few guys), and 3) graphics (which I believe is most of the reason to have 100+ people on a single game project these days) is simply not as important to me as actual gameplay. Hell, I'm spending a lot of time in such games like Wurm, SoaSE, War in the Pacific and Eschalon Book I these days, and they're not exactly the pinnacle of graphics wonders...

To me it has gone downhill. Partially that's because the games these days are just not as good as their 5+ year old counterparts, and partially that's because I refuse to purchase anything which has an online activation requirement (beyond steam). The last bit has probably made me miss out on a few good modern games, so my view is probably going to be slightly darker than those who give no fucks about such minor quibbles.

I did go and replay both CoD2 and MW1 back when MW2 came out just because people were saying how MW2 wasn't so bad and that those who were whining about how MW2 was a step back were wrong. I ended up playing through the whole of CoD2 that weekend just because I found it so much fun. MW2 was uninstalled and deleted when I took a break for food, and I have had no urge to reinstall it. Additionally, the yearly LAN party I usually go to have expressly banned MW2 from their games lineup because of the "no dedicated servers" bit.

Hell, I've pointed out a few times what I think is probably the best example of what I feel is what's wrong with the result of bigwigs hunting the next big AAA billion dollar paycheck, in the form of the comparison of ArmA2 vs OpFlash2. One is clearly designed by console gamers for console gamers (even the PC version which was missing tons of features that made its debut in its 2001 version in the series), the other is clearly designed by pc gamers for pc gamers, and actively expands on the featureset of its original.

It's only your opinion that games these days aren't as good as their 5+ year old counterparts.  This isn't a new discussion, I remember having it in 2000, 2002, 2005 and other years prior.  It's just new to you.

The fact is, you've gotten older and your tastes have changed.  You're not going to find video games as engaging as you did in your teens and early 20s.  Accept this and move on, enjoying the titles you can find.  Stop spending such a large portion of your entertainment budget on games and do like the 30-somethings tend to have done.. buy games later when they're on sale as a complete package for a reduced price.  Work through the backlog and let the younger crowd sift through the shit to find the gems.   You'll be amazed how much fun that 'shitty' game can be when you haven't dropped $60 on it, plus another $30 for the three expansions but have only dropped $19 on a Steam Sale.

That's actually pretty solid advice for anyone gaming in their late 20s and older.

Blowing $10 on a POS on steam doesn't phase me. Blowing $50 on release for Civ 5 made me want to lose my fucking mind.

I would've agreed with you if it wasn't for the fact that when I tested MW2 and found it to be a steaming pile of shit, I fired up CoD2 (CoD1 wouldn't start, so I couldn't test that). I was going to play a few levels, but I ended up tearing through the entire thing. ArmA2 is just as awesome as opflash (and yes, I have tested both again, just this week, just to verify), so I haven't really changed my tastes that much.

I think a more accurate description would be to say that mainstream games have changed (i.e. predominantly developed on consoles) and I haven't changed with them.

As for the "30-somethings" advice, that's precisely what I am doing. Partially because I'm not pre-ordering/buying new games on release day because i don't know what has DRM and what doesn't, and partially because I've come to expect AAA games sucking. Hell, I even got burned on Civ5 turning into a bit of a stinker.

Thankfully I still have indie games developers who still make games I actually like, and steam to help promote those games for them.

I agree with everything you've said here, particularly with regard for a lot of Indie games being throwbacks to the old days with nicer HD graphics and a bit of artwank on top. And hey. Good for Minecraft. And Torchlight, and anything else that manages to do well, but as UnSub says, picking the one title that won the lottery doesn't mean its even vaguely likely to happen to anyone else.

Further to that, Innovation doesn't always mean good. I checked out Play-Asia this morning to see what the weekly special is this week and it's a game called Mindjack. Never heard of it, but under $20, so I checked out some online reviews. 3rd person shooter, uses a bunc of mechanics similar to Gears of War. Some good new ideas in multiplayer, oh, and in SP mode you can take over the minds of enemies and even possess them directly. It's main problem is that apparently it's a shit game. As I often say at work about various things that affect us - it's a good idea, poorly implemented. Kane and Lynch 2's multiplayer stuff (traitor modes, etc) looks similarly intriguing, unfortunately, they're attached to Kand and Lynch.

Those are titles with new/intriguing/innovative ideas that failed because they're part of shitty games. When Gears 4 or Call of Duty 12 or Uncharted 4 or World of Warcraft steal those ideas for the next iteration of their franchises, well, it'll just be another bullet-point on the box, and people who already dislike those titles for their annual McFranchise natures will still piss on them.


Going to go a little bit SirBruce here to make it easier to reply yo the wall of text.


I'd agree with you there, but considering the way that the industry treats its employees and even the way that whole studios get thrown in the garbage can, I'd assume that many to most designers-and-down employees go into the industry is because they love it or because it's a dream job. I'm simply saying that there's nothing wrong with wanting to be well aid.rewarded for the work they put in - nothing wrong with creating a populist work for the masses and buying a house or car because it sold well, rather than creating "art for art's sake" and then living on the streets and eating dog food.

With the IW thing, we've been over it a million times here already. Yes they started with OC as their main platform, and yes by MW2 the PC as an afterthought. My response was pretty much disaapointment, followed by "ah well, fuck it", building a bridge and moving on with my life. I agree they were dicks the way they went about it, but I just didn't buy their game and bought (and played) Bad Company 2 instead. Which is a better game anyway.

Your links don't work from here (at work) but I have no issue with indie devs doing well. Why on earth would I? I own a ton of indie games via Steam that I've never heard of. But again my issue is with the smeghead who wrote that article. Why does it matter if Indie games "can" (but very fucking unlikely) sell as well as a AAA title. (that doesn't do so well). Why can't it just be enough to do well and make them a nice profit so they can go on doing what they do and growing and so on? And really, what exactly is a AAA title these days? Is Enslaved a AAA title? Dark Void? Lost Planet 2?

I'm not even being rhetorical there. - I'm not sure what defines a AAA title, especially these days. Was Arkham Asylum a AAA title or just another licenced game when it was in development? I mean, it was devloped by Rocksteady - their pedigree was Urban Chaos. The first Assassin's Creed? Ubi Montreal had a much better pedigree, but who knew that the game/new franchise would take off the way it did?

Resident Evil 5? Marvel vs Capcom 3? Lost Planet 2? Dead Rising 2? Dark Void? All Capcom. Which ones are AAA and whoch are not - and why?



See, again I'll disagree with a lot of what you have to say here - you dislike consoles, so you're drawing from a much smaller pool of games than if you were happy to play any major format. Like yourself, I won't play a PC game with bullshit-level DRM, but hey, I'd prefer to play Assassin's Creed 2 on a console anyway. In the old days, I played my games on a C64 and then on an Amiga, only getting a console when the SNES had been around for a long time (I was anti-console back when I was 16-18 or so. I was also anti-PC. I had a fucking AMIGA!) But I digress - playing games on a C64 or an Amiga in the day has probably more in common with playing a 360 or PS3 than it does with playing a NES. While I still prefer my shooters on a PC, my first FPS was either Doom or Medal of Honor on the PS1, since I didn't have a PC back then.

I'd also say that I think games are better than they have ever been. Sure, we all have rose-coloured glasses, but you can never go back to the day again. Compare World of Warcraft to EverQuest, or even WoW itself on release. Even though I've gotten bored and stopped playing WoW, the difference is night and day. Street Fighter today is as Street Fighter was then, only with better graphics and more of those featureset things. The original GTA was fun and all, but I can play Zombie Driver today, as well as Just Cause 2 or Saints Row 2 that grew from the GTA Series making the jump to 3D. Some things go backwards. MW2 as you point out, sure. But I'll take Bad Company 2 over the original BF1942, as much as I love the original to bits. I'll also take Bad Company 2 over the original MoH or CoD games, for that matter. There are always going to be missteps and stuff that's basically just shitty, but overall, I think pretty much every genre is better today than it was 5 or 10 or whatever years ago, and usually if there's a latest-iteration misstep (Civ5, etc) the last one isn't so far away that you can't ignore the newest shiny and still buy and enjoy the last one.

And yeah. Are ArmA/2/Op Flashpoint 2 really AAA? Why? Does being a sequel automagically make something AAA? Oh, one last thing. Send me your MW2. I still haven't played it and it's not dropped to cheap enough for me to want to buy yet, esspecially given the short campaign and not much interest in SP mode. But if you don't want yours, I'll take it for a playthrough.
 :awesome_for_real:

Don't buy it, get it from your local library.  S'what I did and it's a $20 game at best if you don't want to Multiplayer it.

OK sort of a tangent here but the whole PC vs. consoles debate and the copying aspect always made me wonder one thing.

Shouldn't the price of the platform actually be factored in if you talk about games that are "too expensive?". Especially since the time frame before it becomes obsolte is much less than on consoles

Most gamers make the argument that they already have a PC so it's only logical to use it as a gaming platform, yet a $300 best buy rig - which would be totally enough for 90% of everything people do with a PC - won't be a viable gaming platform. To enjoy current games like Crysis you'd have to invest in the 4 digit range (at least $1000 to $1200).

For the additional cost I could buy aeach of the current game consoles with money to spare on games and I'd have a more consistent experience with less bugs

The thing about consoles is that while they cost $300 each, chances are you'll either buy just one of them. If you buy both, you're still down $600, and that investment is liable to last for 5-10 years if you buy at the outset. I'm not sure how long they're going to last from today's date, but there are indications that the current platforms will reach 8 to 10 years of age before they're replaced, which gives them a few years of life still.

Yeah, That's pretty much what SirBrucing is. I thought my post was gong to be more like that when I started writing it than it turned out to be. The thing with many of the platform-tastic old-school new HD indie platformers is that they really do lend themselves to a console control scheme better and more naturally than WASD or arrows and spacebar. Either an arcade stick or a gamepad. And yeah, wired 360 pads now being pretty much native to the PC I think is an awesome change of the past few years.

Controls are a finicky thing - and there's both personal preference and nativity at play with them. I tend to play games much more on the format that they're made for now. Borderlands was a PC purchase initially, but since it wouldn't run on my wife's PC of the time, I got it on console, and frankly for all the bullshit that Pitchford spouted about PC being their lead platform, it really is a console game. The PC version does indeed have a severe case of consolitis and now bullshit DRM added on top, so it's questionable as to whether I'd ever bother to install, lt alone fire up my PC version again. I said it to you awhile back in one of these threads - play games on their "native" platforms and you'll be fine. But hell, I copped some shit here because I found the controls to f3 jizz-fest Demons Souls to be "loose". Aside from not finding the game especially interesting, the controls were "loose" because I'm more used to the 360 thumbsticks which give a bit more resistance than the looser PS3 ones. Not something I really noticed on racing games like Motorstorm or even Uncharted, but stood out to me when recently playing the shitfest that is Haze. Well, until I turfed it a few missions in.

GTA 4? RDR? Console games. Same with Assassin's Creed series. (Ass Creed 2 has a decently-priced GOTY now with all the extra DLC included on the disc including the "black" and "white" DLC.) Gears of War is pretty blatantly a console port. So for me it's a game to play on Console, even though generally speaking I prefer my 3PS on a PC. I'm fairly sure that Battlefield 3 will be pretty PC-friendly, and between that, the various MMOS I'm taking a break from, and the back catalogue of stuff I'm yet to play/own on Steam and are yet to play, it's no big deal to me that 90% of titles I'm interested in are realistically going to be best played on console for either control/consolitis or DRM issues.

My point about AAA titles is that it's mostly a bullshit term thrown around by people with an agenda one way or the other. Much of my issue isn't with you directly in any way, but the fuckwit that wrote that article. If you think about it, very few titles are actually "AAA". Most games are just games with a decent or not budget and a bit of marketing behind them. Some of those go on to gangbusters sales (Arkham Asylum) and then the sequel will probably be considered AAA, but if Batman:AA just turned out to be average, it'd be considered a typical licenced game or licenced POS like most Transformers games are. ArmA and OpFlash aren't what you could really call AAA. Neither is Enslaved. Good or bad, those are just games.

Anyway, time for me to head out now.

Yeah, pick up AC2 GOTY and if you have a PS3, both Uncharted games. Both consoles have a lot worth playing on them.

- edit - the list I typed wasnt a "check these out!" list but a list of "which of these do we consider AAA?" The "secret" was that while some were higher profile than others, they were pretty much all from Capcom - point being that big publisher doesn't automatically = "AAA".

The problem I have with playing games on the platform they were made on is that if the consoleitis is too strong (ME2 was mostly fine, as I said the only thing that annoyed me was the duck before jump thing), or if it's an FPS. I absolutely refuse to go for an FPS on the consoles, but I can live with a 3PS if the autoaim isn't as asstastic as it is in the force unleashed. For some reason, Rockstar just does it much better. However, their PC version of GTA4 was a disaster. For some reason it just didn't translate well performance-wise, and with the Live bullshit added on top ... yeah, no. I happily played the previous versions of GTA on the PC, it was really only when you started flying things like the helicopter that I began getting problems and wished I had a pad. vOv

My point about ArmA2 vs OpFlash2 wasn't really so much that they were chasing the AAA title (although I kind of think OpFlash2 was chasing that harder than ArmA2 vOv), but that they were from the outset basically going to be the same game, but the execution turned them into vastly different beasts, one of which was majorily annoying to me because it basically pissed on everything I expected off of that series, and one which was wonderful. Same goes for today's racing games, they just seem 2D compared to the racers I'm used to.

Another thing that's not helping me love the current set of games is of course all this wonderful DRM.

I've tried tone down my whine of DRM, because I'm probably the most vocal about it on this board, but if we discount controls fucking me over on FPSes, DRM is keeping me from a lot more games, no matter how well-designed for the PC they might be. Having said that, I've been looking forward to such games as Shogun 2: Total War, Bulletstorm and Crysis 2. The first I don't want to pre-purchase incase it comes with DRM, and the second I saw yesterday had gotten its steam page updated with its LiveID requirement, and the third had its beta (I think it was) leaked with securom keys (just like its two predecessors). Shogun 2 I can't preorder (and thus lose out on any preorder DLC (god I hate that shit)) because I don't know if it'll come with DRM (steam usually doesn't say until it's been for sale a while), whereas Bulletstorm actually says now that it will have a Windows Live ID requirement. That essentially means 2 games I won't buy on any platform, and one game I won't buy until it's been out for a week or so, to give valve time to update. As you asked in that other thread, "and people wonder why PC FPS sales are down".

Just to throw in: OpF2 was done by a different development studio. Bohemia fell out with the publisher, but had sold them the OpF property.

So ArmA became Bohemia's follow-up to OpF, iirc.

I thought that was more or less common knowledge, but yes, OpF2 was made by a different studio. OpF2 was still a followup of OpF1, so it's still a good example of how a common starting point can end up vastly different given the developers' background/target audience.

Of course you have the problem with consoles. They've got insanely long hardware cycles (how old is the graphics card in the Xbox now? A 7300 from memory, you probably couldn't even find something that old anymore) and games get written down to the lowest hardware level if they're multi-platform, which they increasingly need to be to make back the money.

... Though hopefully not down to Wii compatibility levels, that would be cruel.

People don't bitch when a 360 game looks like a 360 game.  People bitch a LOT when their 2011 computer running a 2011 game has 2005 level PC graphics.  :awesome_for_real:

But graphics don't matter!  :grin:

Graphics doesn't matter. I (and at least most of my friends) give no fucks about graphics past the initial few minutes. We're a lot more interested in a steady framerate and good gameplay, because once games have graphics that go beyond a certain point, it doesn't really give us much beyond that initial "oh hey cool" reaction.

Or are you going to say that most PC gamers would complain bitterly about FEAR-level graphics (which was released in 2005)?

Just a throw-away line about graphics. Not even sure what 2005 graphics would look like.

Graphics do matter as a hygiene factor. Past a certain point they add less for most people, but there's a minimum standard expected and if it is below that it detracts from the game.

I did spot Time Crisis 2 in an arcade the other day and wonder how the hell I ever thought the graphics on that looked good, but that's progress.

2007 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIiw1TPnrq
2006 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5HtHZMQXeU
2005 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCcVy8-nHOU
2004 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uojlqtTIV0
2004 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn9W02eIqZ8
2003 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PdjeTEC0lU
2002 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peY7s2fN18Y
2000 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKp0DP1O4bs
2000 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctjwmrM3JsA
1999 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaVhcnBiob0
1998 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTUOn2EUFhk
1997 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP5Sf964it8
1996 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhzXKMqZBBc

I'm going to just stop there, but when does it go from "oh god this is unplayable get it away get it away" to "ok, I can easily see what's going on and it's not too shabby" to "what's different? Oh wait, I see, there are bumpmaps now!" or similar? When does it become unplayable, and when do you have to look real hard to even notice the difference?

Personally I can live with games with 1996 level graphics if the controls and game mechanics are good enough, but I prefer 2000+. vOv

You mean this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXtL5kS5odo

I'm certainly not going to call it pretty, but it does get the job done. vOv

People bitch ceaselessly about WOW's graphics and have since release.  They were done that way so they could be handled on a wide array of computers built at that time.   You don't see those complaints about 360 or PS3 games looking tired or old, because that's what's expected.   It's an implicit understanding that the hardware is the hardware.   I've seen reviews praise how awesome PS3 or 360 games look and they've not improved on the hardware side. 

If graphics didn't matter, then gamers wouldn't rag so much about on Wii versions vs PS3/ 360 versions of games. 

If you honestly think that a AAA title, or even a AA title can get away with Far Cry's level of Polys or Oblivion's animations in 2011, well, we don't have much to discuss.

*sigh*. I was asking 1) when graphics became so bad that it actually made you turn the game off (which is subjective), and 2) when you had to start looking very hard to even notice the differences.

I was specifically not asking what the "average gamers" keep demanding, because I think we've established pretty extensively that what I think makes for a great game, and what "most gamers" these days seem to think makes for a great game, are vastly different. I look to game mechanics, realism, great story, high FPS and responsive and logical controls, whereas "most gamers" seem to look to achievements, multiplayer and groundbreaking graphics for what makes a great game, and if one of two games that are in direct competition has worse graphics, fewer achievements or lacks multiplayer, that means that it's obviously the inferior game. :uhrr:

As for consoles getting off much lighter than the PC, I dare you to sit down and leisurely play ME2 on the PS3, the 360 and the PC one day apart, and actually be able to point out all (or even a majority) of the differences, without doing a side-by-side comparison. Actually, fuck it, let's cheat and do a side-by-side comparison and see how awful the console graphics are compared to the PC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNb7QA0dDIg

To point out how silly this focus of graphics is, first imagine ME2 with Deus Ex' graphics engine and level. Yes, tons of people would whine about it, but since the vast majority of the game is pretty solid (sans the whole duck before you can jump over crates, and to a minor degree the ammo issue which isn't really that big of a deal), it would still work well for me once I got over the 11 year gap in graphics fidelity. I expect that would take me a minute or two. vOv

Now, imagine Daikatana with ME2's graphics engine and 150+ people making hi-fidelity models and textures for it and thinking up achievements. Would it have made the game infinitely better, or would it still be a pile of shit?

Images linked above are blocked for me at work, but with the free trial I got onto EQ for a couple of hours with my wife (who has now played WoW on and off for several years) to show her around the EQ game and world. I last played casuaally in 2005.

After about 2 hours of EQ, I started to get a pretty bad headache and had to turn it off. The newer/updated areas were alright, if unimpressive. They were still fine in terms of playability, but the unmodified original content just hurt to look at. Literally after awhile. Crystal Caverns eventually did m head in. Even knowing theat it was never a uber-graphics game, but was fine for what it was, I still found it hard to believe that I'd ever spent so many hours/days/weeks in that game simply because the blockiness of it all hurt. I know I was used to it, but it was still a shock to go back.

So the end result is that expectations, including the minimum "I can't play this", change over time. Which is also why WoW have been updating their engine to the point it can actually strain fairly powerful PC graphics cards. Though they haven't been updating their approach to models so it is easy to miss. I guess it might be more difficult to have models scale dynamically.

I know Saints Row 2 on the PC definitely was on the borderline for me.

That's a good way of putting it.

Having said that, even pre-Cataclysm old-world WoW (and TBC) is graphically miles beyond something like EQ, despite the low system reqs, and as we can see, quite a lot of people are still willing to play it despite the fact that it doesn't approach something ike Crysis (2007). Going for the stylised, "cartoony" approach also helps WoW a great deal, especially when compared with the "realistic" graphics of EQ2. (EQ1 pretty much predates "realstic" graphics, especially when you look at the original character models, let alone the Luclin(?) redone ones.

 

That's a design goal WoW has had since day one, yea. While the guy with the 5k dollar machine will have all those fancy new lighting/shadow/water effects and will be able to see 10x's further then the guy with the 5 year old toaster PC, both people will still see the same world in the end.

An Orc will be an Orc to both.


DaoC had this problem, when they updated the engine a few times, the people who could only run the older engine were basically playing a different game visually. It wasn't a huge effect on actual gameplay, but it was noticeable and annoying at times, when people weren't seeing the same stuff.



In the end, I am perfectly fine with 'out dated' graphics, as long as the game is built with those limitations in mind.

Heh, actual headache?

As to saints row 2, I've never actually played that game. I tried the first out for an hour or so, but there was something they did very wrong with their controls (driving I think it was) which just made it a bit of a pita to actually play the game. Nothing like what Rockstar did with GTA. But I would actually consider (after having looked a bit at youtube videos of both 1 and 2) that I'd have absolutely no problems with playing either based on graphics. Hell, they even have semi-lipsync and what looks like motioncaptured movement. What I'm actually the most curious about, however, is what makes it borderline?

Personally, I keep thinking of going back to play Doom or Quake, games which used to literally awe me (I still have a hero worship thing going over John Carmack), but knowing what I know of both doom and quake's gameplay, that's one barrier I just don't step over these days. I've got Serious Sam 1 and 2 for that kind of gameplay. I actually also wish they'd update and put system shock 2 on steam. I miss Looking Glass, they made games that were so far ahead of their times. :heartbreak:

But one thing I find a little bit funny is how one of the more expensive games to be produced the past few years (SWTOR. Yeah, yeah, I know it's not released yet.) looks to me graphically like a slightly better animated and higher res textured Planetside, with higher detailed trees:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Twyfcncurg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e-Fl4D2NOE

Re: importance of the PC gaming market:

NVidia and Microsoft leave the PC gaming alliance (http://news.bigdownload.com/2011/02/18/update-on-pc-gaming-alliance-and-departures-of-microsoft-and-nvi/).

BTW: Both NVidia and Microsoft have been founding members.

There's Microsoft's reason for leaving. ;D

This, combined with ubisoft's 1% of income from PC vs 44 off of 360? It's looking good.

(As long as this isn't the precursor to nvidia pulling out of the PC market entirely, that would leave me with ATI as my only alternative. That went well last time I tried. :oh_i_see:)

What the hell is the PC gaming Alliance... and why would you expect microsoft who owns the dominant competition to be anything more than an obstruction? I'd suspect they're just there to make sure their OS monopoly is protected.

And this would be ubisoft with their marvelous DRM scheme and overall company loss? I see their half year PC game sales since 09 has gone 17%, 12%, 6%, 2% so either PC gaming collapsed in the last year or Ubisoft is really terrible and now entirely console focused.

Where are you pulling those figures, might I ask?

Oblivion is where the pain starts setting in for me.


Their earnings release for Q3 2010-2011.  For the nine month period the number goes up to 2%.  Woo.

http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/gallery_files/site/270/1042/2387.pdf

Really? So even farcry 1 isn't playable for you?

I had the link in a post on the previous page, but AutomaticZen provided it in his post.

There's one thing he (and I) haven't really put the finger on, but which tells me quite a lot when looking at it a second time... the PC goes from 8% when looking at the last 8 months in 2009/2010, to 2% in 2010/2011, PS3 goes from 23% to 21%, 360 goes from 22 to 31%, and wii goes from 26% to 38%.

Also I have to make a slight correction. It's the wii that's doing 44% q3 2010/2011, up from 21% for q3 2009/2010, and the 360 went from 30% to 29% for q3 2010/2011 while the PS3 is also going down from 30% to 21%.

I'm thinking that the reason for the PC going down like a €5 whore is probably due to their DRM.

Yeah. For serious.

I've got no issues with Far Cry 1 or Max Payne 1 though.

I agree, but they won't make that connection.

I've sent them emails of at least 5 games I've refused to buy because of their DRM, and questions of a few others. It's definitely not like we're all just silently walking away with our wallets or moving over to the consoles.

Actually, I wonder why the wii went so much up compared to the 360, PS3 and PC, and what that signifies...

Considering the development cycles, things like % of sales by medium are totally dependent on when their bigger games come out. I don't know that it's the most accurate predictor of development for the future unless you take a look at a five year trend of those percentages on a year-by-year basis with some correlation to their best sellers for those years.

Sorry.  Got my Elder Scrolls mixed up.  Morrowind.  2002 video.


Dance games.  From the same link:

That they're the only ones taking the platform with a little bit of seriousness.  Ubisoft is as guilty of shoveling shit games out as EA and Activision (whose Wii titles are primarily shitty movie rips or downsized versions of their big titles like Rock Band and CoD) but Ubi actually has developed some games that are worth playing on it, like the Raving Rabbids series.   Plus, the games not aimed at teenagers and Man-Children like the Just Dance series and the Michael Jackson experience seem to be doing ok for them.  (Both of which had games out in Q3)


Which is why your arguments weren't making any sense.  See, it's not about what we as individuals -and certainly not "old" folks (demographically speaking) like those on this website - like, want or complain about.  It's what the market is about and they're younger, want more flash and are where things are focused.  Leading back to why I said there's not a graphics problem in consoles that exists in PC games.

A 360 game is a 360 game for ever and ever, never mind it's stuck at that 2005 point until the next hardware generation.  The expectations are what they are.  A PC game with 2005 graphics and no better than that is going to be ridiculed in the market.  PC gamers are snobs that cause lots of problems due to differing hardware and cost more to cater to.  Is it a wonder we're becoming a minority?

Their big hits were some Wii specific dance games according to one article I read. It also had figures for the last 4 halves and it made it fairly obvious market share contribution is very volatile depending on their products and which ones are hits. It's not like a business that is servicing an ongoing demand with a stable product.

Each Just Dance game sells like 2 million units.

I think we're arguing about 2 different things. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're arguing that I'm not understanding how the market is today, whereas I'm arguing that this focus on more and more graphics isn't as necessary as lots of today's gamers are making it out to be, as I think we're past the age where huge strides are made, and we're into minor increments in quality for diminishing returns. I also think that if you were to implement ME2 in daikatana's engine, and daikatana in ME2's engine, ME2 would still be the best game, and daikatana would still be shit. It would just look less like a turd and it'd cost more to produce.

I'm not disagreeing with you about what the realities of the market is today, in fact it's a large part of what I keep complaining about (and people keep telling me I'm wrong, games are better than they ever were, etc etc etc). Fact of the matter is that the gaming industry is increasingly telling PC gamers to get to the back of the bus, with bad console ports restrictive DRM, pre-order "bonuses" (which I can't take advantage of because I refuse to buy games with online activation/always online DRM, and I've seen too many games say nothing about DRM on steam until up to a week or so after it's been released), 1-6 months delay upon release, etc etc etc... and this is if they even release it for the PC at all.

Azazel said once that I was limiting myself to PC games only, and thus missing out on games which came out on consoles. This is true to a certain extent, for a few reasons. Chief amongst which is the fact that I just don't pay attention to console games because I keep getting burned by games like the force unleashed, but also because I have to swap out one of my monitors for use with the 360, so it's a bit of a faff. It's just so much more convenient when it's readily available on steam. vOv

Did you look at the comparison between PS3, 360 and PC in ME2? Have you compared that ME2 to Saints Row? What do you think would happen to Saints Row and if it was released today, with the same graphics?

I'm pretty certain you'll find that console gamers would go "what? saints row? why? they've released saints row 2!" (as if that automatically makes #1 invalid/a bad game) or "ew god no, not with those graphics" just because the game is more than 6 months old.

What makes PC gamers snobs? I'm curious, because from what I've heard from the guys I game with on the PC, gameplay, realism and good game mechanics usually trump graphics, especially when the graphics are past a certain level. Better graphics are of course always welcome and we would probably choose the prettiest game if given the choice between two games which were identical except for their graphics (except, of course, if the graphics were so hardcore they lagged the machine down), but we don't choose the prettier game if the uglier game is the better game, mechanics-wise. If that makes us snobs, then yes, me and my friends are certainly snobs. I can't speak for the rest of the PC gamers.

As to the minority bit, yes, we are, and no, it isn't. We've gradually been marginalized the last few years by major publishers such as EA, Ubisoft etc, and it got a lot worse 2-3 years ago when they began this online authentication crap (at least for me, as they stepped over a line I refuse to cross). I'm also pretty certain it has comparatively little to do with "differing hardware", "cost more to cater to" or even "piracy" (as the 360 has probably just as much piracy going on, even if I can't be arsed to find the numbers to back that assumption up), and much more to do with "hey, look, console gamers are willing to buy games at a higher price and more often than PC gamers. Let's make moneyhats".

I'm thinking DRM is your pet issue and you see it lurking everywhere, just out of the corner of your eye. Granted, Ubi's is pretty egregious. I don't think the average PC gamer cares deeply about DRM, though.

The regular "Hey get this account so we can check your registry" shit? No. Dragon Age had that stuff and it never bothered me. UBI's is a whole new level of stupid. The TAGES stuff was beyond  :facepalm: when they were already running it through Steam. What, I'm hacking Steam now?!? Better double that shit up!

I guarantee you the average gamer cared about UBI's DRM, not DRM in general. I consider myself pretty average in my spending and I refused to buy Settlers because of that shit. First time that's happened since I got burned by the Anno thing where I couldn't play my game for 6 months.

I'm not buying Ubi games because of their particular intrusive DRM either. Maybe this is elitist of me or something, but I don't think people like us who stay informed, participate in gaming forums, etc., really represent the average PC gamer.

It's one of two pet issues, and it has been getting into games I really weren't expecting it to get into. I have almost gotten burnt by a few games not saying anything about DRM on the steam page until 1 week after they were launched, so I do kind of see it lurking everywhere.

To be honest, though, activation-based DRM isn't the worst DRM in the world, at least it only requires you to be online when you install the game (like steam, except with steam it's intrinsic; no inet, no download). Account-based DRM is more :effort: though, I hate having accounts all over the place. Fuck checking every time you start a game and fuck always-on DRM though. That is a particular level of stupid, and that surely has to have an effect on people's opinion of at least UBI and EA.

Having said that, a cousin of mine is very "meh, whatever, I'm not noticing anything right now" about it, and I used to think he and I were of one mind when it comes to most things. Apparently not this.

But anyway, I see now that that sentence of mine which you quoted is just plain wrong. What I meant to say there was "for their PC share going down like a...". I'm assuming that the PC gaming isn't going down as such, it's just shifting over to smaller developers.

Exactly. Plants VS. Zombies and Magicka. Both speak to this and I think show that some companies get that fun doesn't have to have a kerbillion buttons and shiny avatars.

Ubi's retarded DRM definitely cost them sales. It cut over the "I don't really notice" barrier.

Both platforms have something to offer. The PC is chaotic but open so it's good for experimentation but has no champion or unifying force. The Consoles are proprietary from the top down so they do have an owner and champion who'll fight for big budget exclusives. The audience differs somewhat too, and what suits the ergonomics of the game environment better.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/03/02/microsoft-pc-gaming-is-not-dead%E2%80%9D/


They left the PC gaming alliance, but the PC is doing fine, really!

The PC Gaming Alliance was kind of a dumb, useless thing from the get go, so leaving it just makes sense, and doesn't really reflect on the state of PC gaming as a whole.

"He explained that the PC games market has seen a 3% increase in growth at retail"

Well duh, PC games are nearly non-existent at retail here. Any future the market has is going to be online sales (eg. Play-asia!) or distribution (mainly steam).